But the point is, for a sizable segment of the population, calling the cops makes things worse even for big crimes like murder, armed robbery, and rape. That’s the problem that needs to be addressed.
And ooh, Kearsen1, how about we also scrap the private companies that fail time and again? Private companies fail even more often than government agencies.
In a recent episode of the podcast, The Weeds, Matt Yglesias related two anecdotes: in Minneapolis, a city councilmember had proposed an amendment to slightly reduce police department funding. In response, the PD slow-rolled all responses calls in his district and told anyone who complained to take it up with the councilmember. Second, in Baltimore, police responded to criticism after the Freddy Gray protests by executing a city-wide work slowdown - including for real crimes that actually need police - which has significantly worsened overall crime levels.
I haven’t done a deep dive on either of Yglesias’s anecdotes, so feel free to quibble as necessary. But separately, here in Seattle, the mayor and the chief of police have instituted a 30-day moratorium on use of tear gas against protestors. The police have completely ignored that and continued gassing non-violent protestors, including a city council member.
These are not a handful of bad apples. These are completely rogue agencies that are no longer serving the people and are not responding to elected leaders. They should be abolished. Yes, we’ll need to replace them with new agencies that have police powers, and maybe we’ll call those agencies ‘police.’ Those new agencies will need to be more accountable, and probably smaller too. But the rot is too thorough at this point to try minor reforms.
You must be joking. Nobody is surprised at the police employing violence; it’s what they do. The exhausting predictability is what makes people turn to political violence after nothing else works.
Nobody is surprised that the police use illegal excessive violence. Nobody at all.
I read a good article on snopes about what it means, and basically, they say it’s an idea for providing alternative solutions other than force.
If a guy is robbing a bank, yeah, show up with guns.
But if a guy is thinking of jumping off a bridge, maybe a uniformed office with a gun isn’t the best possible response. If a husband and wife are screaming at each other, possibly an alternative to armed officers might be deployed.
“Defund the Police” was a really bad slogan, and it gives ammo to bad people; “Make the police more versatile” doesn’t have the same “zing” but it’s what is meant.
Domestic disputes are often highly volatile and conducive to violence; police officers tend to be wary of them because they themselves can be targets of homicidal rage. Do we really want to throw civilian mediators into an acute situation where one or both parties has a history of assaulting their partner and may be armed?*
As to abolishing the police, this is a great idea if one likes the thought of gun-toting George Zimmerman-type vigilantes patrolling neighborhoods instead of professionals.
*I was going to be a smart-ass and inquire if Trinopus was leery of cops responding to threatened bridge-jumpers because of the frequency with which they shoot potential suicides, but I resisted.
I would hope that the civilian mediators would have the skills and tools necessary to handle domestic disputes more successfully than the police.
The police are trained to dominate and subdue the criminals they are faced with, those are not necessarily the skills we need to handle DV situations. The interaction may be very different if the person involved is a non-LEO, who will not be arresting anyone, not using a weapon, or handcuffing anyone.
It’s a different dynamic talking with a counselor than talking with a guy who is ready and willing to arrest you right there in your living room.
I think most cops would be happy to have some other group handle calls that don’t require laws to be enforced. Misbehaving child, car crash, barking dog, parking disputes, landlord/tenant, medical and a myriad of other social worker type calls. Get the enforcers there, if needed. But even these calls can go south quickly if emotions are high. I wouldn’t include DV in that group, however. “Violence” is in the very name of the matter and they are some of the more dangerous calls to respond to. The priority on such calls is the safety of the victim. Counseling or mediation can come later. IMHO, a battered wife would rather see cops with handcuffs than a recent college grad with an MSW, at least initially.
Occasionally, LEO are required by law to arrest people involved in a DD if there are signs of violence. Also, only a fool would try to intervene between two heated people. Its dangerous. Police are trained to deescalate situations like the above.
That’s what I was thinking as I read through this. I understand the point, but I think, at least in many cases the cops have to be there while they’re ‘in the heat of the moment’. A counselor isn’t going to be much help when while people are actively yelling at each other, possibly drunk, might heave weapons (or at least in a mindset to punch someone) etc.
However, once the cops get there and calm everyone down and assess the situation, feel like everyone is going to be safe, then a counselor can come out and handle things from there. It’s entirely possible that doing that, and maybe somehow requiring some type of mandatory counseling over the new few weeks could be what prevents 6 more calls over the next month or two. And I feel like, at least in part, that’s the plan.
I could even imagine that being a bargaining chip for the police to help deescalate things. Explain to the couple that the jurisdiction requires someone to leave in handcuffs when DV is involved, however, I can bring the counselor out tonight, and no one gets arrested.
Again, that’s one of the goals right? Help people instead of just arresting them. Getting counselors involved instead of police.
It might at least be interesting to see if it works. I can imagine some problems that would have to be ironed out, but in the long term, on average, maybe it would reduce/prevent some DV.